Appeal No. 2006-3096
Application No. 10/116,676
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations as recited in independent claim 1. From our review of the Examiner’s
rejection, we find the same deficiencies in the rejections which Appellant notes at pages
5-9 of the Brief.
Appellant argues that:
Barry has neither the purpose nor the novel elements of Appellant's invention. In
Barry, a DB2 data base is periodically reorganized, i.e., updated data is reordered
in the database file to make accessing more efficient (see col. 2, lines 6 through
19 and col. 12, lines 8 through 23). This is different than Appellant's invention,
where the purpose is providing access to updated data in a VSAM system
[Emphasis added.] [Br. 5].
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided a teaching or a
convincing line of reasoning as to the use of the claimed method in a VSAM system. In
a later discussion with respect to independent claim 18, the Examiner mentions column
10, line 54 of Barry which mentions a VSAM data set (Answer 15). While the reference
mentions VSAM in one location with respect to a data set format, we cannot find that this
teaches a method for enhancing VSAM files online availability in a system. In response
to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner merely states that the Basani reference teaches
file renaming of live, temp and backup designations and switching access (Answer 10).
We do not find this response addresses Appellant’s argument. Therefore, Examiner's
response to the argument is not sufficient or persuasive.
Appellant additionally argues that:
Barry does not provide for sequentially switching online access between two
files (the old data files and the new updated data files) in order to provide
continued access during a file renaming process. While the Examiner is correct in
pointing out that the database files in Barry are renamed (and exclusive access is
provided to the renaming process), Barry specifically acknowledges that access
to the files is disabled during the renaming process in order to permit the
renaming (see col. 7, lines 4 though 24) (Br. 5-6).
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner merely states that the Basani
reference teaches file renaming of live, temp and backup designations and switching
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007